Re: [xmca] Toolsfor thought (corrigendum)

From: bella kotik <bella.kotik who-is-at>
Date: Fri Jul 06 2007 - 05:40:21 PDT

Dear David!
*On p. 193 Luria associates inner speech with Chomsky's "deep structures"
and implies that these are located in the brain. , , which ARL associates
(194) with Chomsky¡¯s deep structure!
*I'd like to see it.

 I read the chapter "Neuropsychological analysis of understanding of speech
message" in "Basic problems of neurolinguistics" (in Russian). Though it is
"Neuropsychological analysis", Luria refers to Chomsky's terminology but
does NOT connect his concepts to ANY brain structure. In citing you use I do
not see it either.

*b) He then discusses ¡°thought¡±, and claims that all words have thought with
the possible exception of collocations/exclamations (¡°ugh!¡± ¡°look!¡± ¡°damn
it!¡±) and to some extent dialogue speech. I don't agree with this at all; it
seems to exclude affect from the realm of thought.*
That is your conclusion, not Luria's, he followed Vygotsky's concept of
unity of affect and intellect.
What he meant is that when in cases of total aphasia sometimes patients can
only exclaim such utterances and curse.

* I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that. Is music less "thoughtful"
than literature simply because it is less verbal? Is mathematics less
thoughtful than social science?*

Hope these ??? are rhetorical. But think of recent data in the field of
Emotional intelligence which show that amigdala can control rather complex
behavior with reaction time impossible for any thought.

*Even more puzzling is the cases where Luria says that in an exchange where
"the content of the answer is determined to a considerable degree by the
interlocutor and in which the existence of finer thought is assumed only in
cases in which the answer prepared is not wholly determined by the
question." If I understand this correctly, Luria thinks that in the
following exchange, A is thinking but B is not.*
A: Marry me or I will kill myself.
B: OK.

Luria would not agree with you so do I- it seems you take it to such an
extreme where it is already something different. He as Vygotsky in
"Lang.&Thought" speaks about the role of contexts

Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut

xmca mailing list
Received on Fri Jul 6 09:56 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:19 PDT